Documents
Resources
Learning Center
Upload
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

ANADO Teleconference Agenda

VIEWS: 11 PAGES: 6

									                                                                      Workshop Minutes



             ANADO World Anti-Doping Code (WADC) Implementation Seminar


 Date:         Wednesday, 16 June 2004
 Time:         7.10pm – 9.20pm
 Location:     A l’ancienne Douane
               6, rue de la Douane
               67000 Strasbourg, France

Attending:
                Organisation                Last Name    First Name
Anti Doping Denmark                         Mikkelsen   Finn
Anti-Doping Norway                          Solheim     Anders
Anti-Doping Norway                          Riiser      Petter
Anti-Doping Norway                          Ordway      Catherine
Anti-Doping Norway                          Engelstad   Anne
Australian Sports Commission                Cohen       Nadine
Australian Sports Drug Agency               Mendoza     John
Austrian Anti-Doping Committee              Demel       Karlheinz
Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport         Melia       Paul
Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport         Luke        Jeremy
Cyprus National Anti-Doping Committee       Kanari      Popi
Doping Control Netherlands                  Terlouw     Koen
Finnish Anti-Doping Agency                  Krouvila    Pirjo

Irish Sports Council                        May         Una

Irish Sports Council                        Leonard     Siobhan
Kosova Olympic Committee                    Hasani      Besim

National Anti Doping Commission, Barbados   Lorde       Adrian

National Anti Doping Commission, Barbados   Murrell     Neil
National Anti Doping Commission (Czech
Republic NOC)                               Prerovsky   Jan
National Anti Doping Commission (Slovenia
NOC)                                        Osredkar    Josko

National Anti Doping Committee (Hungary)    Bakanek     Gyorgy

Nationale Anti-Doping Agentur (Germany)     Augustin    Roland
Nationale Anti-Doping Agentur (Germany)     Weber       Christian

Netherlands Centre for Doping Affairs       Van Kleij   Rens

New Zealand Sports Drug Agency              Steel       Graeme
New Zealand Sports Drug Agency              Kernohan    Jayne




                                                                                     1
                                                                            Workshop Minutes


                                                 Family
                 Organisation                    Name       Given Name

Slovak Anti-Doping Committee                  Feriencik     Kazimir
Slovak Anti-Doping Committee                  Motycik       Miroslav

South African Institute for Drug-free Sport   Manjra        Shuaib

Swedish Sports Confederation                  Nyberg        Haakan

Swedish Sports Confederation                  Olinder       Kristina

Swiss Olympic Association                     Hintz         Oliver

Swiss Olympic Association                     Kamber        Matthias
UK Sport                                      Challies      Rose

United States Anti-Doping Agency              Madden        Terry
United States Anti-Doping Agency              Mittelstadt   Kate
Anti-Doping International (guest)             Brassil       Carolyn
WADA (presenter)                              Andersen      Rune

Apologies:
                                                 Family
                 Organisation                    Name         Given Name
Beauchamps Solicitors, IRE                    Rice          Gary
Comite Olimpico De Ecuador                    Carrera       Danilo
Australian Sports Drug Agency                 Gripper       Anne
Malaysian Association for Doping Control in
Sports                                        Jegathesan    Manikavasagam
Japan Anti-Doping Agency                      Asakawa       Shin
NOC of Albania                                Bello         Stavri
Finnish Anti-Doping Agency                    Viertola      Juha
UK Sport                                      Scott         John
UK Sport                                      Carter        Janet
South African Institute for Drug-free Sport   Bradbury      Daphné
Nicki Vance Consultants                       Vance         Nicki


   1. Welcome by the President and hand-over to Chair of Seminar
      Paul Melia welcomed all participants and guests to the second of ANADO‟s seminars; this time
      focused on the challenges posed to NADOs in implementing the World Anti-Doping Code. The
      President thanked Mr Graeme Steel from the New Zealand Sports Drug Agency for agreeing to
      act as Chair of the seminar in the absence of Gary Rice.

   2. Background to and use of the WADA Models of Best Practice - Rune Andersen (WADA)
      Director of Standards & Harmonisation

       Rune outlined the structure of the World Anti-Doping Programme. The World Anti-Doping Code
       is the basic document in the World Anti-Doping Program. The Program is structured in three

                                                                                                    2
                                                                          Workshop Minutes

levels and includes the World Code (level 1), International Standards (level 2) and Models of Best
Practice (level 3).

Rune highlighted the Models of Best Practice available to NADOs to assist in implementing the
WADC. The Model Rules and Guidelines developed under Level 3 are to be used as needed.
The documents currently available on the WADA website include:

Models of Best Practice

Model Rules

       Model Rules for International Federations
       Model Rules for National Anti-Doping Organizations (draft)
       Model Rules for Major Games Organisers (MGOs)

Guidelines

       Guideline for Result Management
       Guideline for Out of Competition Testing
       Guideline for Whereabouts Information
       Guideline for Urine Sample Collection
       Guideline for Blood Sample Collection

Forms (including Instructions)

Doping control forms have been developed in partnership with international federations, NADOs,
athletes, laboratories and other stakeholders to standardise documentation and simplify the
doping control process for athletes and sample collection personnel.

       Doping Control Form
       Supplementary Report Form
       Chain of Custody Form
       Doping Control Officer Form

In addition to the above, WADA is in the process of developing, with its partners, the following
additional documents:

       Guidelines for Breath Alcohol Testing – Timeline: End of June 2004
       Guidelines for Test Distribution Planning - Timeline: End of 2004
       Guidelines for DCO Training - Timeline: End of 2004
       Guidelines for Establishing a Testing Pool- Timeline: End of 2004

WADA has received a lot of help from IADA (International Anti-Doping Arrangement) in
developing these guidelines.

Model Rules for National Anti-Doping Organisations

WADA and IADA (International Anti-Doping Arrangement) have created Model Rules for National
Anti-Doping Organisations (NADOs). These Model Rules, are aimed to help and assist NADOs
in implementing the World Anti-Doping Code. The Model Rules for NADOs were based on the
Irish Sports Council Anti-Doping Policy. WADA is grateful to the Irish Sports Council and the
Australian Olympic Committee for allowing WADA to utilise their anti-doping policies in drafting
the Model Rules. Thanks also go to Catherine Ordway from Anti-Doping Norway, who, with the
IADA project team, drafted the Model Rules.

                                                                                                 3
                                                                              Workshop Minutes


   Questions from participants covered the following topics; results management, transitional
   measures for whereabouts and TUEs for international-level athletes before an IF becomes a
   signatory and deadlines for the Guidelines for Establishing a Testing Pool.

   Rune then made the participants aware that copies of the current draft of the Model Rules, that
   had not yet been formally approved by WADA and put on the WADA website, were available for
   the participants to take with them. The final version would appear on the WADA website in the
   coming days.

3. A Different Approach: Drafting the Irish Sports Council (ISC) Anti-Doping Policy (the Irish
   Anti-Doping Rules) – Dr Una May, Anti-Doping Programme Manager, Irish Sports Council

   Ireland does not have a long history of anti-doping, and has had very few positive test results.
   The ISC initially offered National Sports Federations (NSFs) the option of using Model Rules
   developed by the ISC. Now all NSFs must comply with the Irish Anti-Doping Rules. The ISC has
   one set of rules which allows the NSFs to align with the relevant IF rules. The ISC Anti-Doping
   Policy is based on WADA‟s Model Rules for IFs. It was simplified and made more user-friendly.
   For example, the TUE sections were expanded so that all the information could be found in one
   package.

   Under the section on Results Management, the basic proposition is that the disciplinary panel and
   the appeals panel are independent from the ISC and from each other. The significant deviation
   from that position was required in negotiating with one of Irelands biggest NSF, Gaelic Athletic
   Association. This federation was not prepared to accept the independent panel requirement. It
   was therefore accepted that the initial hearing can be conducted in-house by an NSF but only on
   condition of strict adherence to standards and procedures as set out in the Irish Anti-Doping
   Rules, and also that they must use the ISC Appeal Panel. It is also stated in the policy that the
   ISC may appeal any decision of an NSF hearing body.

   The Irish Anti-Doping Rules state that where there is a material conflict between the Irish rules,
   and the rules of a relevant IF, that the rules of the IF will prevail.

   The ISC also decided that it was important for human rights considerations that the Irish Anti-
   Doping Rules include a statement that the hearing proceedings were to be conducted in private.
   The ISC was keen to reduce the media circus that tends to surround sports drug cases, and to
   allow the panel members the opportunity to speak freely.

4. Athlete Whereabouts Information - how to determine and manage the Registered Testing
   Pool - Oliver Hintz (SOA) Chief of Head Office, ADC

   Over the last 10 years, the responsibility for anti-doping has moved from our member federations
   to Swiss Olympic Association (SOA). Out of Competition (OOC) doping controls have become
   much more important than In Competition (IC) controls. We found that while OOC testing was
   effective, athletes could still avoid being tested.

   The previous SOA regulations (replaced in May 2004), required that elite athletes had to report
   their training data (generally) and to report absences of more than 5 days. This led to the
   realisation that it allowed the athletes too many “loopholes”.

   The WADC Article 14.3 deals with athlete whereabouts information. The International Testing
   Standard (ITS) sets out requirements for establishing the registered testing-pool and for collecting
   athlete whereabouts information for the purpose of OOC testing (4.3 and 4.4).

   As a result, the “Doping-Statute” of SOA was revised by the Sports Parliament on 12 May 2004.
   This meant that the mandatory content of the WADC was included in the SOA “Doping-Statute”
   verbatim. SOA‟s execution regulation (Level 2 regulation) was then revised by the Anti-Doping
   Commission on 2 June 2004. SOA has until the end of 2004 to effect the practical

                                                                                                     4
                                                                               Workshop Minutes

   implementation of the WADC. In the area of athlete whereabouts, this means the formation of
   registered testing-pools in the different sports and the use of new whereabouts information forms.

   Under the Doping-Statute, it is stated that:
       no advance notice testing is the standard (IC + OOC)
       a registered athlete pool must be formed (determined between SOA and the National
           Federation)
       the National Federations have the obligation to inform the athletes of the whereabouts
           requirements
       the athletes have the obligation to comply with the whereabouts information requirements
       there are sanctions for whereabouts violations

   The Execution Regulations include the following:
       annual determination of the registered testing-pool by SOA and the National Federations
          (squads)
       athletes incorporated in the pool and athletes excluded from the pool throughout the year
          must be reported to the SOA Anti-Doping Commission (ADC)
       athlete whereabouts information must be submitted to the ADC on a quarterly basis
       a definition of the minimum information required
       changes must be reported immediately
       for team-sports, different solutions are possible (e.g. may be clubs instead of athletes
          which have to report relevant information)
       WADA location forms are the standard, although similar forms from International
          Federations are accepted
       while there is no WADA clearinghouse, the international-level athletes have to report their
          whereabouts to the relevant IF and the ADC

   The levels of reporting required of athletes in Switzerland fall under the SOA „Three Circle Model‟.
   The largest circle comprises the athletes holding a SOA license, the middle circle comprises
   those athletes holding a SOA license and having been named in the SOA registered testing pool,
   and the smallest inner circle comprises those athletes international athletes that hold an SOA
   license and have been named in the SOA testing pool.

   Questions from the floor raised the following issues: sanctioning of team sports where clubs are
   reporting, importance of random verses target testing, how often athletes are required to report,
   resolving inconsistencies between SOA and IF reporting requirements, imposing costs of missed
   tests, whether target testing can be conducted IC and the size of the SOA registered testing pool.

5. Workshop Groups Discussion
      TUEs (requirements for athletes competing internationally at lower levels and/or at national
       upper level) – Facilitator: Dr Adrian Lorde (NADC), Chairman
      Reporting Requirements (eg: how to share material with WADA in compliance with Code until
       the WADA system is functional) - Facilitator: Jeremy Luke (CCES), Senior Manager, Doping
       Control Program
      NADOs using the Model Rules (where to start) - Facilitator: Catherine Ordway (ADN), IADA
       Model Rules for NADOs Taskforce Project Officer

6. Presentations from workshop groups and questions from the floor

      TUEs Workshop Group Representative – Roland Augustin (NADA)
       Participants in the workshop group had very different systems and these systems
       differentiated between international, national and lower level athletes. It was identified that it
       would be useful to know which IFs had a TUE system in place, and which IFs would be
       prepared to recognize the NADO‟s system. The participants would also like to persuade



                                                                                                       5
                                                                            Workshop Minutes

        WADA to drop two prohibited substances from the TUE reporting list, namely; the beta 2
        agonists and the glucocorticosteroids.

        The suggestion is that all NADOs itemise the increased workload arising from the TUE
        obligations under the WADC. It was felt that if WADA understood the number of personnel,
        hours of work, impact on the laboratories and compared this with the number of positive test
        results, they could see that the work was not worth including these items on the list.

        The group therefore recommended that ANADO makes contact with WADA to suggest; which
        items should be taken off the list, how systems could be harmonised and assess the cost
        implications.

        Questions and comments from the floor included: how to deal with athletes at events whose
        TUE applications had not yet been considered, experiences from some NADOs of findings of
        very high levels of corticosteroids in samples, indicating doping and WADA‟s TUE
        Committee.

       Reporting Requirements Workshop Group Representative - Jeremy Luke (CCES)
        The group discussed how NADOs could comply with certain reporting obligations under the
        WADC prior to WADA developing and implementing the Clearing House. Specifically, the
        following articles were discussed; Article 4.4, whereabouts being provided as soon as
        possible (eg: via fax), and the Article 14.5 reporting of all tests conducted.

        Questions and comments from the floor included: whether NADOs have to meet these
        reporting requirements prior to WADA developing the clearing house, and whether NADOs
        can deduct the administration costs from their national payments to WADA.

        There was a general consensus that a communication should be sent to WADA requesting
        instructions on how NADOs are to adhere to the reporting requirements within the WADC
        before WADA has developed the clearing house.

       NADOs using the Model Rules Workshop Group Representative – Nadine Cohen (ASC)
        The group discussed how far through the WADC implementation process they were, and the
        special challenges facing each of the group members. It was thought that a lack of funding
        for NADOs and National Sports Federations was impeding their work. Also, there was a
        need for WADA to provide support and assistance (especially know-how rather than funding).
        The exchange of information, and assistance with ensuring compliance was seen as WADA‟s
        role. The group felt that the Model Rules could be very useful for emerging NADOs. The
        Model Rules would help to determine priorities and set a framework for national anti-doping
        strategies.

7. Summary and Close - Chair
   The participants agreed that ANADO could play an important role in the sharing of information, in
   particular how to implement or fix a problem. The Secretariat could either circulate the
   information via email to all members. Alternatively, a discussion forum, chat room or Most
   Frequently Asked Questions section on the ANADO website could be explored as an option for
   information exchange.

   The President again thanked Graeme Steel for acting as Chair and all the Members for their
   presence and contribution to a very successful seminar and workshop.




                                                                                                  6

								
To top